http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: V.GOPAL REDDIAR (DEAD) BY L.R. AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/12/1994

BENCH:

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: MRS.  SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.: 1.   Leave  granted  in C.A.Nos. 3039-40/95  S.L.P.  (Civil) Nos. 14935-14936 of 1994. 2.   Substitution allowed in Civil Appeal Nos. 3774-3775  of 1992. 3.   All  these  appeals  raise a  common  question  of  law relating  to  the  interpretation of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred  to  as ’the Principal Act’) read with  Tamil  Nadu Act.   No. 17 of 1970 which is, the Tamil Nadu Land  Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970.  The latter Act is hereinafter  referred  to as ’the Reduction  Act’.   As  the facts are different in each group of appeals, they are dealt with separately. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3774-3775 OF 1992 4.   The deceased, V. Gopal Reddiar, the first appellant and his  wife,  the  second appellant  in  these  appeals,  held agricultural  lands  in  excess  of  the  ceiling  limit  on 6.4.1960,  which  is the date of commencement of  the  Tamil Nadu  Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act,  1961. Under  Section  5  of the Principal Act,  a  ceiling  of  30 standard  acres  is fixed on land holding in the case  of  a family.   An additional 10 standard acres is the celling  of land holding of Stridhana land. 5.   Under Section 7 of the Principal Act, on     and   from the date of commencement of   the  Act  (i.e.  on  and  from 6.4.1960)  no person shall (except as otherwise provided  in this  Act,  but subject to the provisions of  Chapter  VIII) hold  land in excess of the ceiling area.  Under Section  8, within 90 days of the notified date, every person holding or deemed to be -holding land in excess of the celling area  is required  to furnish to the Authorised Officer a  return  in respect  of  his  land as specified in  that  Section.   The notified  date under the Principal Act is  2.10.1962.  Under Section 10(1) the Authorised Officer is required to  prepare a draft statement in respect of a person’s holding in excess of the ceiling area in the manner and on the basis specified therein.  This draft statement is required to be  published. A  final  statement  has  thereafter  to  be  prepared   and published as set out in Sections 12 to 14.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

6.   Under  Section  23 of the Principal Act,  if  a  person holds land in excess of the ceiling limit, any sale of land, effected  by  him  after the notified date  but  before  the publication  of  the final statement cannot  be  taken  into account  in  considering  his holding for  the  purposes  of fixing  the  ceiling.  In the present case,  the  appellants effected sale transactions in respect of certain lands  held by  them  between  3.7.1963 and  17.7.1964  i.e.  after  the notified date under the Principal Act.  There are five  such transactions of sale during this period. 7.   On  28.7.1965,  a  draft  statement  was  published  in respect of the appellants’ lands under Section IO(].) of the Principal Act.  The appellants objected to the draft  state- ment on 18.11.1965. While the proceedings were pending under the Principal Act, 78 the  Tamil Nadu land Reforms (Reduction of Ceillng on  Land) Act, 1970 came into force.  The date of commencement of  the Reduction  Act  is 15.2.1970. Under the Reduction  Act,  the ceiling  on  land  in case of a family  was  reduced  to  15 standard  acres  and  the ceiling  on  Stridhana  -land  was reduced to 5 standard acres.  The "notified date" under  the Reduction Act was 2.10.1970. 8.It was contention of the appellants that the  transactions of  a  sale effected between 3.7.1963,  and  17.7.1964  were prior  to the commencement of the Reduction Act, and  should be   excluded  from  their  holding  for  the   purpose   of determining the now reduced ceiling limit under the  pending proceedings.   This submission was rejected.  An  order  was passed  on  20.11.1971 asking the  appellants  to  surrender 30.30.standard acres from out of their holdings as  surplus. Being  aggrieved by the said order the appellants  filed  an appeal  before  the Land Tribunal.  The Land  Tribunal  con- firmed the order of the Authorised Officer and dismissed the appeal. 9.In  revision, the high Court by its order dated  16.7.1976 directed  a  fresh  enquiry to be  held  by  the  Authorised Officer.   The High Court said that under the Reduction  Act the notified date was 2.10.1970. It directed the  Authorised Officer  to  consider whether the sale transactions  of  the appellants   before  this  notified  date  were  bona   fide transactions or not. 10.The Authorised Officer, by his order dated 25.9.1980,held that  the transactions of the sale after 6.4.1960 will  have to  be  ignored for the purpose of the  pending  proceedings i.e.  the  lands forming the subject matter of  these  sales shall  be considered as a part of the  appellants’  holding. He  determined  the  surplus  land  accordingly.   The  Land Tribunal  in  appeal  upheld the  order  of  the  Authorised Officer.   The revision petition of the appellants has  been dismissed  by  the  High Court by its order  dated  22nd  of November, 1.989. Hence the present appeals have been filed. 11.Now,  in  order  to appreciate the  contentions  of  both sides,  it  is  necessary  to look at  Chapter  III  of  the Principal Act.  Chapter III of the Principal Act is entitled "Ceiling  on Future Acquisition and Restriction  on  Certain Transfers".   Sections  19 to 23  constitute  this  Chapter, Under  Section  19(1),  on  and  after  the  notified   date (2.10.1962),  no  document  relating  (inter  alia)  to  any transfer  of  land  by sale shall  be  registered  unless  a declaration is made by the transferee before the registering authority  of the total extent of land held by him,  as  set out therein. 12.Section  20(1)  provides  that if, as  a  result  of  any transfer  of  land  (inter alia) by sale, on  or  after  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

notified  date, the land held by the transferee exceeds  the ceiling  area, then the right, title or interest accrued  in his  favour  by  virtue of such transfer in  excess  of  the ceiling  area, shall be deemed to have been  transferred  to the Government.  Both these sections prescribe  restrictions qua a transferee after the notified     date. 13.  Under Section 22, where on or after the date         of commencement  but  before  the  notified  date  (i.e.   from 6.4.1960  to 2.10.1962) any person has transferred any  land held.  by him (inter alia) by sale, the  Authorised  Officer may,  after notice, on enquiry, declare the transfer  to  be void if he finds that the transfer defeats any of the 79 provisions of this Act. 14.  Section23 which is relevant for our purpose provides as follows:-               "Subject to the provisions of section 20,  for               the purpose of fixing, for the first time, the               ceiling area of any,person holding land on the               date  of  the  commencement of  this  Act,  in               excess  of 30 standard acres,  the  authorised               officer shall not take into consideration--               (a)   any transfer               (b)   effected  on or after the notified  date               and before the date of the publication of  the               final statement tinder Section 12, or 14." Thus,  Sections 22 and 23 place restrictions on transfer  of land  qua a transferor.  Any transfer made by  a  transferor between 6.4.1960 and 2.10.1962 is liable to be declared void if  it defeats the Principal Act.  Any transfer  made  after 2.10.1962  and before the final statement cannot  be  taken, into  account  for  determining  the  land  holding  of  the transferor, if he holds land in excess of the ceiling  area. The  transactions  of  sale  in the  present  case  are  not affected by Section 22.  Under Section 23, however, for  the purpose of determining the ceiling area of 30 standard acres under  the  Principal Act, any sale  transaction  after  the notified  date of 21.10.1962 but before the  publication  of the  final  statement  has to be  ignored.   Therefore,  the transactions  of sale in the present case, which have  taken place   after  the  notified  date  but  before  the   final statement, have to be ignored for the purpose of determining the appellants ceiling limit under the Principal Act. 15.  However;  in  the present case, the Reduction  Act  had come  into  force  before  the  publication  of  the   final statement.  As a result of the Reduction Act, the  Principal Act was modified as set out in the said Reduction Act.  As a result,  "the date of the commencement of this Act"  as  de- fined  in Section 3(11) of the Principal Act was changed  to 15th  of February, 1970 instead of 6th of April,  1960.   By reason  of amendment of Section 3(3 1), the  notified  date" became  2.10.1970.  In Section 5 of the Principal  Act,  the ceiling area of 30 standard acres was changed to 15 standard acres and the Stridhana holding was changed from 10 standard acres  to 5 standard acres.  We are not concerned  with  the other changes in Section 5. 16.  Section  23  of  the  Principal  Act  was  amended   by insertion  of words "after the date of the  commencement  of this  Act",  after the words "for the first time";  and  "30 standard acres v was substituted by " 1 5 standard acres". 17. The amended Section 2 reads thus:               "Subject to the provisions of Section 20,  for               the  purpose  of fixing, for the  first  time,               after  the  commencement  of  this  Act,   the               ceiling area of any person holding land on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

             date  of  the  commencement of  this  Act,  in               excess  of 15 standard acres,  the  Authorised               Officer shall not take into consideration -               (a)   any transfer by sale ............ ;               (b)   effected  on or after the notified  date               and before the date of the publication of  the               final statement under Section 12 or 14." It  is contended by the appellants that since  the  notified date now is 2.10.1970, trans- 80 actions  of  sale  between 2.10.1970 and  the  date  of  the publication of the final statement alone have to be  ignored for  the purpose of determining the ceiling of  15  standard acres   under   the  amended  Principal  Act.    Hence   the transactions  of sale in the present case, which have  taken place period to 2.10.1970, cannot be ignored and -will  have to  be  taken into account to determine the holding  of  the appellants on the date of the commencement of the  Reduction Act. 1,8.  This submission ignores Section 3 of the Reduction Act which  is in the nature of Saving Section.  It  provides  as follows:-               "Section  3: (1) Subject to the provisions  of               sub-section  (2) any action  taken  (including               any order made, notification issued,  decision               or   direction   given,   proceeding    taken,               liability  or penalty incurred and  punishment               awarded) under the provisions of the Principal               Act before the date of the publication of this               Act  hi  the Fort St. George Gazette,  may  be               continued  or enforced after the said date  in               accordance   with   the  provisions   of   the               Principal  Act  as if this Act  had  not  been               passed.               (2)   Nothing  in  sub-Section  (1)  shall  be               deemed  to entitle any person whether  or  not               such  person  is  a party  to  any  proceeding               mentioned  in sub-section (1), to  hold  after               the 15th day of February 1970, land in  excess               of  the ceiling area tinder the Principal  Act               as modified by Section 2 and the provisions of               the  Principal  Act as modified by  section  2               shall,  after  the said date,  apply  to  such               person.  " Section  3(i)  provides that any proceed in which  has  been taken  under the provisions of the Principal Act before  the publication of Reduction Act, may be continued in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act as if the Reduction Act  had  not  been  passed.  The  proceeding  for  the  de- termination of ceiling under the Principal Act had commenced in  the  present case in 1965.  It had,  however,  not  been concluded  when  the Reduction Act came into  force.   Under Section 3(1), therefore, this proceeding has to be continued as  if  the  Reduction Act had not been  passed.   Taken  by itself, therefore, under Section 3(1) the ceiling area of 30 standard  acres  would  have  to  be  determined  under  the Principal  Act  as  it originally stood.  If  so,  the  sale transactions   in  question  will  not  be  considered   for determining the ceiling area prescribed under the  unamended Principal  Act, they having taken place after 2.10.1962  and before the publication of the final statement. 19.Sub-section  (2)  of  section 3  of  the  Reduction  Act, however, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), no person shall be deemed to be entitled  to hold  after  15th of February, 1970, land in excess  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

ceiling  area  under the Principal Act as  modified  by  the Reduction  Act.  It further provides that the provisions  of the Principal Act as modified by Section 2 of the  Reduction Act  shall,  after 15th of February 1970, apply  to  such  a person.   Therefore, it is clear that despite  Section  3(1) the  appellants  cannot hold land in excess of  the  reduced ceiling  area  after 15.2.1970.  Their  holding,  determined under  Section 3(1), would have to be reduced further.   How should this be done? 20.It  is submitted before us by the respondents that  as  a result  of  Section  3(2)  of  the  Reduction  Act,  pending proceedings under the old Act have to be continued save  and except   that   the  ceiling  would   be   reduced.    Hence transactions of sale after 81 2.10.1962  which  were  required to  be  ignored  under  the unamended Section 23 of the Principal Act would also have to be  ignored  under  the Principal Act  as  modified  by  the Reduction Act in view of Section 3(1). 21.This submission ignores an important part of Section 3(2) which  prescribes  that  for the purpose  of  determining  a person’s  reduced ceiling after 15th of February, 1970,  the provisions of the Principal Act as modified by Section 2  of the Reduction Act, shall apply to a person against whom  any proceedings  are  pending as described under  Section  3(1). This  means  that  under Section 3(2), for  the  purpose  of determining the reduced holding, the amended Section 23 will have to be applied i.e. the notified date under the  amended Section  23  has  now to be read  as  2.10.1970  instead  of 2.10.1962.  For  the  purpose, therefore,  of  reducing  the holding  further under Section 3(2), only sale  transactions between  2.10.1970 and the date of the final  statement  are required to be ignored.  Subsections (1),and (2) of  Section 3  must be read harmoniously.  In a case where a  proceeding under  the Principal Act had commenced under  the  Principal Act  but had not concluded before tic commencement  -of  the Reduction  Act,  the proceeding will have  to  be  continued under   the  unamended  principal  Act  to  arrive  at   the permissible  holding  under the unamended  Principal  Act  A person,  however  cannot hold more than the reduced  ceiling area  after  the  commencement of the  Reduction  Act.   The proceeding,  therefore,  will have to continue in  order  to further  determine  the reduced holding under  the  modified Principal  Act.   For the purpose of determining  his  final holding  under  the  modified  Principal  Act,  the  amended Section  23 will have to be applied to the  ceiling  holding determined under the original Principal Act.  In the present case, therefore, for the purpose of calculating the  reduced ceiling area sale transactions between the new notified date and the date of the final statement alone should be  ignored (vide  amended  Section  23).  Sale  transactions  prior  to 15.2.1970  will have to be taken into  account.   Therefore, for  further reduction under Section 3(2) what will have  to be taken into account, will be the holding of the appellants as  determined under the Principal Act (Section  3(1))  less any  other reduction in their holding on account  of  sales, transfers  etc. prior to the commencement of  the  Reduction Act.  The existence of the words "and the provisions of  the Principal Act as modified by Section 2 shall after the  said date apply to such person" in Section 3(2) clearly  indicate that  the further reduction of holding as per the  Reduction Act has to be done in accordance with the provisions of  the Principal Act read with the Reduction Act.  Sub-section  (2) cannot  be read as simply reducing the ceiling area  in  the pending proceedings under the Principal Act.  Subsection (2)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

clearly  provides  the method of thus reducing  the  ceiling after 15th of February, 1970.  This further reduction has to be  done in accordance with the provisions of the  Principal Act read with the Reduction Act. 22.Any pending proceeding, therefore under the Principal Act will  have  to be continued and concluded in  the  aforesaid manner  by  first  calculating the ceiling  area  under  the Principal  Act and then reducing it further to  the  ceiling under  the  Reduction  Act read with the  Principal  Act  by applying the provisions of the Principal Act as modified  by the Reduction Act; so 82 that  a person does not hold land in excess of  the  ceiling area  prescribed  under  the Principal  Act  read  with  the Reduction Act.  The holding of the appellants, therefore, is required   to  be  redetermined  in  accordance   with   the principles laid down by us hereinabove. 23.The   appeal   are  accordingly  partly   allowed.    The proceedings   are   remanded  to  the  Land   Tribunal   for determination  of the ceiling area of the appellants in  the manner  described hereinabove.  There will, however,  be  no order as to costs. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4960-4965 OF 1994 24.These  proceedings pertain to certain properties held  by one  Papayee Ammal.  Papayee Ammal enjoyed lands  which  she had  inherited  as the heir of her husband and also  as  the successor-in-interest of her sister Saradambal.  There  were disputes  between Papayee Ammal and one Victor  Jagannathan, the son of her husband’s sister, and his children in respect of  these  lands.   As a result, a  family  arrangement  was arrived  at  on  17.9.1959. Under  the  family  arrangement, certain specified properties were given to Papayee Ammal for life  and  the  remaining properties were  given  to  Victor Jagannathan  and his children.  After the death  of  Papayee Ammal, the properties in which she had a life interest, were to  vest in the children of Victor  Jagannathan  absolutely. Papayee  Ammal,  however,  had  a  right  to  alienate   her properties in respect of which she had a life interest. 25.After  this  family arrangement was arrived  at,  Papayee Ammal, between 1960 and 1962 alienated certain properties in respect of which she had a life interest. As a result, in 1964 suits were filed against her by  Victor Jagannathan  and  his children challenging  the  alienations made  by  Papayee Ammal.  These alienations,  however,  have been ultimately upheld by the High Court. 26.  Papayee  Ammal  died on 23.6.1965.  Victor  Jagannathan also died on 5.7.1965. In 1966, -a draft statement under the Principal  Act was published in respect of the land  holding of  Papayee Ammal since on the date of the  commencement  of the Principal Act, Papayee Ammal was alive and held lands as a limited owner.  Proceedings were taken under the Principal Act  after  bringing the heirs of Papayee Ammal  on  record. Certain  lands  in Vellappakam Village so  held  by  Papayee Ammal belonging to her estate were declared as surplus. 27.  Between  1.  1.  1979  and  27.1.1979  the   appellants purchased  some  of the lands in Vellappakam  Village  which have  been declared as surplus, from the children of  Victor Jagannathan.   The final statement, however, in  respect  of the holding of Papayee Ammal was published on 27.1.1983. The appellants and others filed revision petitions under Section 82  before the Land Commissioner.  The Land Commissioner  by his   order   dated  25.9.1984  held  that  there   was   no irregularity in the determination of the holding of  Papayee Ammal and that the lands involved in the earlier sales  made by Papayee Ammal should be allowed to be retained within the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

ceiling  limit of 30 standard acres as on 6.4.1960  and  the lands involved in the subsequent sale should be declared  as surplus. 28.  The  appellants  filed writ petitions  challenging  the order of the Land Commis- 83 sioner.  These petitions were transferred to the Tamil  Nadu Land  Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal.  The  Tribunal  by its  order  dated  17.9.1992 has held  that  lands  held  by Papayee Ammal would attract the provisions of the  Principal Act.  It has further held that there is nothing wrong in the proceedings  commencing  after the death of  Papayee  Ammal. The  Tribunal has rejected the contention of the  appellants that  since no proceedings were commenced during  the  life- time  of  Papayee  Ammal, lands had  become  vested  in  the remaindermen  and, therefore, the proceedings  were  without jurisdiction.  The Tribunal also held that the provisions of the  Principal  Act alone will  apply,  notwithstanding  the coming into force of the Reduction Act.  In this  connection the Tribunal has relied upon the provisions of Section  3(1) of the Reduction Act referred to above. 29.In the present appeals it is this finding of the Tribunal which is under challenge. 30.It is contended by the appellants that on account of  the death of Papayee Ammal in 1965 the properties vested in  the remaindermen  before the commencement of the Reduction  Act. Hence the lands in question cannot be considered as holdings of  Papayee  Ammal on the date of the  commencement  of  the Reduction  Act.   The  proceedings,  therefore,  under   the Principal Act are bad in law and the properties in  question have been validly alienated in their favour by the heirs  of Papayee Ammal. 31.This contention has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal under  Section  3. Papayee Ammal was alive on  the  date  of commencement  of  the  Principal  Act  and,  therefore,  her holdings  was required to be determined under the  Principal Act.   The  proceedings against the estate  of  the  Papayee Ammal were, therefore, rightly commenced under the Principal Act after bringing her heirs on record.  During the pendency of these proceedings, the Reduction Act came into force.  By reason   of  Section  3(1)  of  the  Reduction  Act,   these proceedings for the purpose of determining the ceiling under the  Principal Act were required to be continued  under  the Principal  Act.  However, in these proceedings, the  reduced ceiling  was required to be determined under the  provisions of  the  Principal  Act read with the  Reduction  Act.   The pending proceeding, therefore, must proceed to a  conclusion in the light of both sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section  3. There  is only one proceeding under both  sub-sections.   In that  proceeding,  the  permissible holding  must  be  first determined  as  per the Principal Act.  This  holding  must, thereafter,  be further reduced as provided in Section  3(2) by  applying the Principal Act as modified by the  Reduction Act.  Hence there is only one proceeding -- the one which is commenced under the Principal Act.  If it has not  concluded before  15th February, 1970, it is required to be  continued and completed in the above manner.  Since the proceeding  is one  and continuous, the death of Papayee Ammal  during  the pendency   of  this  proceeding  does  not  result  in   the termination   of  this  proceeding.   Section  3(2)   merely prescribes   a  reduced  ceiling  and  the  method  of   its calculation.   It  does not contemplate  commencement  of  a fresh proceeding when the proceeding under the Principal Act has not come to a conclusion. 32.The  sale  transactions in question which took  place  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

January 1979 will clearly 84 have to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the  reduced holding of the estate of Papayee Ammal.   Since these  sale  transactions have, taken place  after  the  new notified date as per the Reduction Act and before the  final Statement,  these  cannot be excluded from  the  holding  of Papayee Ammal. 33.  The  ratio  of the judgment of this Court  in  B.K.  v. Radhamani   Ammal  v.  Authorised  Officer,  Land   Reforms, Coimbatore  (1985 (2) SCC 46) does not apply to the  present case.  In that case the proceedings under the Principal  Act had  come  to an end.  After the coming into  force  of  the Reduction  Act, fresh proceedings were commenced  under  the Principal  Act  as  amended by the Reduction  Act.   In  the present   case,  fresh  proceedings  are  not  taken   after 15.2.1970.  The proceeding under the Principal Act  had  not been concluded before the commencement of the Reduction Act. It  was, therefore, continued under the Principal Act  under Section  3(1) read with Section 3(2).  It does not abate  on account  of the death of Papayee Ammal during its  pendency. as the heirs and legal representatives of Papayee Ammal  are on record. 34.The   appeal  are  accordingly  dismissed.  There   will, however, be no order as to costs. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3039-40 OF 1995 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 14935-36 of 1994) 35. In the present case, one Chellmani Ammal, the mother  of the  appellant had filed a return under Section 8(1) of  the Principal  Act  in respect of lands held by  her.   She  had filed another return on behalf of the appellant, who is  her adopted son, and who was then a minor.  As per Section 3(14) of the said Principal Act their holdings were clubbed as one unit.  There were several proceedings adopted in  connection with  clubbing of the two holdings by Chellamani  Ammal  and the  appellant with which we are not concerned.  During  the pendency  of these proceedings, the Reduction Act came  into force. 36.  On  30.9.1970 the appellant made a Deed of  Declaration of  Trust  settling  14.93 acres in  favour  of  E.R.  Hindu Elementary  School,  Trichy.  On the  same  date  Chellamani Ammal  also executed Deed of Declaration of  Trust  settling 31.41  acres of her land in favour of  E.R.Hindu  Elementary School,  Trichy.  Both of them claimed that the  land  which was the subject matter of the two trusts should be  excluded from  their holdings under Section 2 1 -A of  the  Reduction Act. 37.  In  this connection, Writ Petition Nos. 652 and 653  of 1977  were filed by the appellant and his mother before  the High  Court  of Madras.  The High Court by its  order  dated 7.1.1980  set  aside  the orders of the  Land  Tribunal  and remanded  both  the matters to the Tribunal for  fresh  con- sideration relating to the applicability of Section 21 -A of the  Principal  Act  read with the  Reduction  Act,  to  the holdings  in  question.  The Tribunal in turn  remitted  the proceedings to the Authorised Officer for fresh disposal  in the light of the observations made by the High Court. 38.  The Authorised Officer held that since the  proceedings had been initiated only under the Principal Act, they had to be  continued according to the provisions of  the  Principal Act  in  view of 3(1) of the Reduction Act.   He  held  that Section 2 1 -A 85 which was incorporated in the Principal Act by the Reduction Act,  would not apply to these proceedings.  These  findings

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

were  upheld by the Land Tribunal as also by the Tamil  Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal.  Hence, the present appeals by Special leave have been filed before us. 39.  Section 21 -A has been inserted in the Principal Act by the Reduction Act.  The relevant provisions of Section 21 -A arc as follows:               "’Section   21-A:   Notwithstanding   anything               contained  in  Section  22  or  in  any  other               provision of this Act and in any other law for               the time being in force, where, after the date               of  the commencement of this Act,  but  before               the notified date -               (a)..................               (b)..................               (c)   any  person has voluntarily  transferred               any land-               (i)   to any educational institution; or               (ii) hospital;               of a public nature solely for the purposes  of               such   institution  or  hospital  such   .....               transfer shall be valid This  Section  overrides  all other provisions  of  the  Act including Section 22.  It will, therefore, override  Section 3(1) of the Reduction Act also.  Hence, as a result of  Sec- tion  21-A,  if between 5.2.1970 and 2.10.1970 any  land  is transferred  voluntarily,  inter alia,  to  any  educational institution,  such a transfer shall be valid.  The  land  so transferred is, therefore, excluded from the holding of  any person  even  though the proceedings against  him  may  have commenced  under the old (i.e. the Principal) Act.   If  the proceedings had not concluded before the Reduction Act  came into  force, the person can claim the benefit of Section  21 -A. 40.In  the case of Susila Devi Ammal and Ors. v.   State  of Madras  (1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 462) the provisions of  Section 21-A   were  construed  by  this  Court.   In   that   case, proceedings under the Principal Act were pending.  The  High Court  had,  in  revision, held that there  was  a  material irregularity  in  the order in computing the  holding  which needed to be corrected.  These proceedings were pending when Section  21A was enacted by the Reduction Act.  This  Court, while interpreting Section 21-A, stated :-               "However, the said provision gave, what we may               call  a transfer holiday, for a  small  period               from  February  15, 1970 to  October  2,  1970               providing   that   notwithstanding    anything               contained  in  Section  22  or  in  any  other               provision  of this Act, and in any  other  law               for the time being in force, where any  person               has   effected  by  means  of   a   registered               instrument a partition of his holding or  part               thereof  such partition shall be  valid.   Now               here  the  family  which  is  a  person  under               Section  3(47)  of  the Act  -by  means  of  a               registered,   partition   deed   effected    a               partition on April 2 1970 within those crucial               dates.   It  is  cant  to  notice  that   this               provision  with  its non-obstante  clause  has               asserted  Supremacy over all other  provisions               of the Act .... "               (emphasis supplied) This  Court  held  that  Section  21-A  would  override  the provisions of Section 23.  This ratio is directly applicable to the present 86

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

case.   Section  21-A  will,  therefore,  apply  to  pending proceedings  under  the Principal Act,  notwithstanding  the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Reduction Act. 41.  In  this connection, a reference has also been made  to the  case  of M.K. Harihar Iyer v. Authorised  Officer  Land Reforms,  Tirunelveli  (1990  (1) SCR 358).   In  that  case appellant-land-owner had land in excess of 30 standard acres as on 6.4.1960. He filed a return as required by the Princi- pal  Act  an  an enquiry was  initiated  by  the  Authorised Officer.   Under the said Act several objections  raised  by the  appellant  were  rejected and  the  Authorised  Officer determined the surplus holding of the appellant.  There were various  proceedings in connection with this finding of  the enquiry officer which ultimately went in revision before the High  Court.  One of the pleas raised before the High  Court was  in  connection with certain documents executed  by  the appellant between 15th of February, 1970 and 2nd of October, 1970.  Section 21-A came to be incorporated in the Principal Act  by  reason of the Reduction Act.  The High  Court  held that provisions of Section 21-A would have to be applied for determining  the ceiling area.  It further held that if  the documents  executed were found to be in order to defeat  the provisions of the Act, the transactions may be declared void under Section 22 of the Act.  This finding of the High Court was challenged before this Court.  This Court considered the provisions  of Section 21-A and Section 22 of the  principal Act  as amended by the Reduction Act, and held that  Section 21  -A,  which  begins with  the  words  -  "notwithstanding anything  contained  in  Section  22"  -  clearly  overrides Section  22.   Hence transactions covered  by  Section  21-A cannot  be inquired into under Section 22.  In view  of  the overriding effect of Section 21-A over not only Section  22, but  any  other provision of law, it must  override  Section 3(1). 42.  Our  attention  was also drawn to a  decision  of  this Court  in the case of B.K V. Radhamani Ammal  (supra).   The ratio  of this case, however, will not apply here  since  in that  case,  the  proceedings under the  Principal  Act  had already  concluded long before the Reduction Act  came  into operation and the proceedings which were considered by  this Court  in that case were fresh proceedings  initiated  under the Principal Act read with the Reduction Act. 43.  In  the  present case, the benefit of Section  21-A  is available to the appellant in respect of the Deeds of  Trust executed  on  30.9.1970.  The  holding  of  the   appellant, therefore,   has  to  be  calculated  after   applying   the provisions of Section 21 -A. 44.  The  appeals  are accordingly allowed to  this  extent. The  matter  is remanded to the Land Tribunal  for  a  fresh determination  in the light of this judgment.   ’Mere  will, however, be no order as to costs. 45.  Looking  to  the  circumstances the  Land  Tribunal  is directed  to  dispose of all  these  matters  expeditiously, preferably within four months. 87